WritingintheSciencesUnit6.1:AlternativestoOriginalResearch:Reviews,LetterstotheEditor,CaseReportsExampleofgoodwriting!“Thelessonofoptogeneticsisthattheold,thefragile,andtherare—evencellsfrompondscumorfromharshSaharansaltlakes—canbecrucialtocomprehensionofourselvesandourmodernworld.Thestorybehindthistechnologyunderscoresthevalueofprotectingrareenvironmentalnichesandtheimportanceofsupportingtruebasicscience.Weshouldneverforgetthatwedonotknowwherethelongmarchofscienceistakingusorwhatwillbeneededtoilluminateourpath.”—KarlDeisseroth,November2010,ScientificAmerican“ControllingtheBrainwithLight”(onOptogenetics)Reviewarticles„Goals:„Synthesizeandevaluatetherecentprimaryliteratureonatopic.„Summarizethecurrentstateofknowledgeonatopic.„Addresscontroversies.„Provideacomprehensivelistofcitations.Non-systematicvs.Systematicreviewsvs.Meta-analysisNon-systematicreview„Sometimescalleda“narrative”review.„Maynotbecomprehensive.„Mayevaluatethestudiesqualitativelyratherthanquantitatively.Systematicreview„Attemptstofindandsummarizeallrelevantstudies.Mayevenincludeunpublishedwork.„Followsarigoroussearchstrategyusingpre-definedexclusionandinclusioncriteria.Searchesmultipledatabases.„Evaluatesthequalityofeachstudyusingrigorous,pre-definedcriteria.(oftenquantitative)Meta-analysis„Asystematicreviewthatadditionallyusesstatisticaltechniquestopooldatafromindependentstudies(sometimesincludingunpublishedstudies).Reviewarticles:structure„(Abstract)„Introduction„Generalbackground/what’sknown„What’sunknown„Clearstatementoftheaimofthereview„Thebodyofthepaper/mainanalysis„Explainthesearchstrategy(databases,exclusioncriteria,andinclusioncriteria).„Summarizetheliterature;organizedbasedonmethodologyortheme.„Analyze,interpret,critique,andsynthesizestudies.„Conclusionandfuturedirections„Whatrecommendationscanyoumake?„Whatgapsremainintheliterature?Whatfuturestudieswouldhelpfillinthesegaps?„LiteraturecitedAbstract:example„Inprinciple,giv